Nigeria’s ₦68.32 Trillion Budget & The Dangerous Politics Of Public Spending

By AMINA USMAN ABDULRAHMAN

NIGERIA’S ₦68.32 trillion 2026 budget was presented as an instrument for national development. Yet, revelations surrounding some of its provisions have raised troubling questions about how public money is prioritised, scrutinised and protected.

The discovery of ₦1.3 billion allocated to the purported Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council has become one of the most striking examples. Questions have also followed reports of ₦780 million allocated for musical equipment for churches in Bende Federal Constituency of Abia State.

The controversies do not end there.

A review by civic technology organisation Tracka reportedly identified ₦962.83 billion for SUVs and various empowerment projects. The allocations cut across 78 ministries, departments and agencies.

The scale of the provisions has intensified concerns about the use of the federal budget for projects that have little connection with national priorities.

Tracka also found that only 70 per cent of 2,579 empowerment projects had clearly identified locations. The remaining projects raise questions about their actual existence, purpose and implementation.

That gap matters.

A project without a clearly identifiable location is difficult for citizens to monitor. It is also harder for oversight agencies to verify. Such opacity creates room for inflated costs, abandoned projects and possible diversion of public funds.

The problem becomes even more striking when government agencies receive allocations for projects outside their statutory responsibilities.

The National Mathematical Centre in Abuja, for instance, was reportedly assigned the construction of a Sociology Department building at Ahmadu Bello University in Zaria.

The National Building and Roads Research Institute was also reportedly assigned projects involving traditional rulers’ palaces, markets, village halls and religious buildings in different states.

These provisions raise fundamental questions about the architecture of Nigeria’s federal budgeting system.

The Constitution establishes the responsibilities of the federal government through the Exclusive Legislative List. Projects such as local markets, community halls, religious buildings and traditional rulers’ palaces do not ordinarily belong at the centre of federal spending.

When such projects appear in the national budget, the issue is not merely whether they are popular in particular communities. It is whether federal resources are being deployed in accordance with constitutional responsibilities and national priorities.

The timing also deserves scrutiny.

The 2027 general elections are approaching. The budget reportedly contains ₦15.13 billion for 39 SUVs.

That allocation may require especially rigorous examination because expensive vehicles and constituency empowerment projects can easily become instruments of political patronage.

The larger concern is opportunity cost.

Nigeria is carrying enormous infrastructure deficits in healthcare, education, transportation, housing and other essential sectors. Yet the 2026 budget contains provisions that critics say prioritise politically attractive projects over strategic national investment.

The budget itself is projected at ₦68.32 trillion. About 46 per cent is expected to be financed through borrowing.

That borrowing makes every naira more consequential.

Money spent on poorly justified projects is not simply money spent. It becomes additional pressure on taxpayers and future generations who will service the debt.

The discovery of the ₦1.3 billion allocation to a purportedly nonexistent agency also raises questions about the safeguards surrounding the budget process.

Large expenditure lines are ordinarily expected to pass through scrutiny by the relevant ministries, departments and agencies, legislative committees and budget officials before approval.

The appearance of such an allocation therefore demands more than a search for who inserted it.

It requires an examination of the entire chain of accountability.

Where did the proposal originate?

Which ministry or agency defended it?

Which legislative committee considered it?

What documentation accompanied the request?

Who verified the existence and mandate of the agency?

And why did the provision survive the approval process?

Those questions should not disappear after public outrage subsides.

Nigeria has experienced similar controversies under previous administrations.

Former Presidents Olusegun Obasanjo, Umaru Yar’Adua, Goodluck Jonathan and Muhammadu Buhari all encountered controversial budget provisions that resulted in withheld assent, objections or withdrawals.

In 2000, former President Obasanjo reportedly withheld assent after identifying a ₦2 billion budget padding.

In 2011, President Jonathan rejected a budget containing a reported ₦40 billion allocation for lawmakers’ jumbo allowances.

The Buhari administration also witnessed open disagreements between ministers and lawmakers over budgetary insertions.

Former Health Minister Isaac Adewole withdrew his ministry’s budget after reportedly discovering a ₦15.7 billion diversion from capital projects.

Former Works, Power and Housing Minister Babatunde Fashola similarly rejected a ₦2 billion provision that he said his ministry had not submitted.

These episodes demonstrate that budget scrutiny cannot end when the National Assembly passes an appropriation bill.

The executive must also examine what reaches the president’s desk.

The National Assembly has the constitutional power to appropriate public funds. That power, however, carries a corresponding responsibility to protect the public purse.

The executive also has a duty to ensure that the final appropriation reflects legitimate government priorities and complies with applicable laws.

The procurement process presents another concern.

Projects should ordinarily have clear specifications, credible cost estimates and implementation plans before public funds are committed. Where projects enter the budget without proper designs or realistic costing, procurement becomes vulnerable to manipulation.

The history of abandoned constituency projects illustrates the consequences.

Billions of naira can be appropriated, released and partially spent without producing durable public assets.

Citizens are then left with incomplete buildings, uncompleted roads, abandoned facilities and empty promises.

That is why the current controversy should not be reduced to a debate over individual budget lines.

It points to a deeper institutional problem.

Nigeria needs a budgeting system that places measurable public needs above political convenience.

The zero-based budgeting approach deserves renewed consideration. Under such a system, MDAs would have to justify expenditure according to current needs rather than automatically receiving allocations based on previous spending patterns.

Such an approach could make it harder to recycle questionable projects from one budget year to another.

The immediate responsibility, however, is to review the 2026 appropriation.

Dubious provisions should be identified, investigated and removed where necessary. Projects outside federal responsibilities should face constitutional scrutiny. Unclear beneficiaries and locations should be verified.

The National Assembly and the executive cannot demand public confidence while refusing to explain questionable allocations.

The federal government also cannot convincingly present itself as an anti-corruption administration while questionable expenditure survives within the national budget.

Public accountability begins with the budget.

Every naira appropriated should have a clear purpose, a legitimate beneficiary and an identifiable public value.

Anything less risks turning the national treasury into a marketplace for political interests.

The 2026 budget should therefore be subjected to a rigorous public audit of priorities, legality, necessity and value for money.

Nigeria cannot afford to borrow heavily to finance development while allowing scarce resources to disappear into projects that citizens cannot verify.

The country needs a budget that builds institutions, infrastructure and human capital.

It does not need a budget that rewards political connections.

The choice is ultimately between treating public money as a national trust or continuing to regard the treasury as a source of political patronage.